SBW will not play again this year

[Moffo]

sure it wasn't from banging kok in bangkok?

 

[eastsrule]

sure it wasn't from banging kok in bangkok?

that's the one

 

[IanG]

That won't be an option. I'm 99% sure that you can't file an injunction to prevent someone from plying their trade. They can sue him for contract violation, but can't prevent him from playing overseas.

I'M NOT A LAWYER, SO THIS MAY NOT BE 100% CORRECT.

Well another caller saying they were a barrister stated that if the Bulldogs tried to take out an injunction it would only be valid on Australian soil so it'd be useless overseas.

I'M NOT A LAWYER, SO THIS MAY NOT BE 100% CORRECT.

As far as what I think of the situation goes. I really dont know. I suppose like most RL fans I'm still taken aback by teh whole story.

 

[Moffo]

good to see clayton utz is so well represented in the world of RL

 

[Moffo]

that's the one

noted

 

[auckwarriors]

Normal civil action, such as the avenue for the Bulldogs to sue SBW has no standing internationally, as no body exists to seize assets or call in debt as long as he's already left the country. There's no question of the illegality of his walking out on the Dogs. He has committed a fundamental breach of contract, which allows both the Bulldogs and the NRL with whom his contract is actually registered (and potentially News Ltd.) to take the case before court.

You'd have to think in this situation that the Court of Arbitration for Sport would have jurisdiction. The upside is the Court of Arbitration has dealt with this sort of matter at great length in the past, with European soccer disputes. Also, there is an arm of this court in Sydney as well as it's European headquarters, so there's not really any danger of Eurocentrism.

Presuming the NRL know what they're talking about in saying that the contract had no get-out clause whatsoever, SBW could well look like being excluded from professional sport for breach of contract and illegal negotiation. The court has powers of exclusion, suspension and seizing of assets. The biggest point of the matter is, though, the agent who negotiated the matter is not only breaching contract but committing fraud by misrepresentation. It's tantamount to bigamy, say. As far as the law and the COA is concerned, SBW has promised his exclusive services to the Bulldogs until 2011. Another contract promising exclusivity CANNOT be signed under any circumstances without a release, which SBW cannot enable on his own, apparently, where Mark Gasnier could.

 

[eastsrule]

Well another caller saying they were a barrister stated that if the Bulldogs tried to take out an injunction it would only be valid on Australian soil so it'd be useless overseas.

I'M NOT A LAWYER, SO THIS MAY NOT BE 100% CORRECT.

You aren't a lawyer. But you are 100% correct.

The Supreme Court of NSW, Federal Court of Australia or High Court of Australia has jurisdiction over Australian/NSW Sovereignty only.

The Court of Cassation would have difficulty in recognising Australian law. I don't think the French like being interfered with by "smaller" nations such as Australia.

 

[Moffo]

You aren't a lawyer. But you are 100% correct.

The Supreme Court of NSW, Federal Court of Australia or High Court of Australia has jurisdiction over Australian/NSW Sovereignty only.

The Court of Cassation would have difficulty in recognising Australian law.

:lol:

and you are a lawyer?

:lol:

 

[t-ba]

:lol:

and you are a lawyer?

:lol:

He's a Student of International Law...

 

[eastsrule]

Normal civil action, such as the avenue for the Bulldogs to sue SBW has no standing internationally, as no body exists to seize assets or call in debt as long as he's already left the country. There's no question of the illegality of his walking out on the Dogs. He has committed a fundamental breach of contract, which allows both the Bulldogs and the NRL with whom his contract is actually registered (and potentially News Ltd.) to take the case before court.

You'd have to think in this situation that the Court of Arbitration for Sport would have jurisdiction. The upside is the Court of Arbitration has dealt with this sort of matter at great length in the past, with European soccer disputes. Also, there is an arm of this court in Sydney as well as it's European headquarters, so there's not really any danger of Eurocentrism.

Presuming the NRL know what they're talking about in saying that the contract had no get-out clause whatsoever, SBW could well look like being excluded from professional sport for breach of contract and illegal negotiation. The court has powers of exclusion, suspension and seizing of assets. The biggest point of the matter is, though, the agent who negotiated the matter is not only breaching contract but committing fraud by misrepresentation. It's tantamount to bigamy, say. As far as the law and the COA is concerned, SBW has promised his exclusive services to the Bulldogs until 2011. Another contract promising exclusivity CANNOT be signed under any circumstances without a release, which SBW cannot enable on his own, apparently, where Mark Gasnier could.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport has very little jurisdiction in this matter. Whilst it relates to sport it moreso relates to contract law associated with the laws of Australia and the laws of France.

This is not about someone's eligibility for some Olympic event. It is a bit deeper than that.

 

[eastsrule]

In fact, looking a bit deeper into ICAS jurisdiction, it only relates to matters which an arbitration agreement are shared.

And, I highly doubt that there is an agreement between the French Rugby Union and the NRL to which matters of dispute are passed onto the ICAS...

*edit*

In fact there is no such agreement by my research. Therefore, the ICAS has little to no say on this matter.

Woof woof.

 

[auckwarriors]

The Court of Arbitration for Sport has very little jurisdiction in this matter. Whilst it relates to sport it moreso relates to contract law associated with the laws of Australia and the laws of France.

This is not about someone's eligibility for some Olympic event. It is a bit deeper than that.

Thanks for the heads-up about the Olympics. Look into your jurisprudence and common law relevant to the subject before you write that rubbish.

Here, sport is more or less superfluous to the issue. But it has to be remembered that Contract Law is a civil breach and there is no single body that has an umbrella jurisdiction internationally on civil crimes barring extradition. However, this court can provide for SBW to be excluded from playing with Toulon (or whoever), as well as any other recognised competition in any sport, and provides a tribunal for the matter to actually be ajudicated on at this point in time, and order payment to the NRL & Canterbury some form of damages. It's not conclusive, but no court is given the nature of transnational, not international as you seem to think, law.

 

[Once Dead]

Ok, ok, ok, we get the message.......time to put the books away and sleep on this simple facts.......

$onny Bill William$ just performed the his own castration.........he is no longer a man.......he is a coward, who let down his friends, team mates, FAMILY, fans and everyone whoever saw potential in him.....

You, Money Bill are not a dog, but a cat.

Goodnight.

 

[Paley]

You aren't a lawyer. But you are 100% correct.

The Supreme Court of NSW, Federal Court of Australia or High Court of Australia has jurisdiction over Australian/NSW Sovereignty only.

The Court of Cassation would have difficulty in recognising Australian law. I don't think the French like being interfered with by "smaller" nations such as Australia.

So what you are saying is that the french aren't to be trusted?

 

[eastsrule]

Thanks for the heads-up about the Olympics. Look into your jurisprudence and common law relevant to the subject before you write that rubbish.

Here, sport is more or less superfluous to the issue. But it has to be remembered that Contract Law is a civil breach and there is no single body that has an umbrella jurisdiction internationally on civil crimes barring extradition. However, this court can provide for SBW to be excluded from playing with Toulon (or whoever), as well as any other recognised competition in any sport, and provides a tribunal for the matter to actually be ajudicated on at this point in time, and order payment to the NRL & Canterbury some form of damages. It's not conclusive, but no court is given the nature of transnational, not international as you seem to think, law.

The Court of Arbitration for Sport has absolutely no standing on this matter.

An Australian court can prove that he has breached common law, absolutely. He has. But will a French court uphold this decision? He has not breached french law at all... And french law is the only thing a french court can rule on, as far as i know.

And you have said it yourself, there is no international umbrella body relating to this matter. In saying that I can be proven wrong whereby part of his contract directly stipulates he cannot play rugby union in france, however i doubt that is there.

 

[auckwarriors]

"Any individual or legal entity with capacity to act may have recourse to the services of the CAS. These include athletes, clubs, sports federations, organisers of sports events, sponsors or television companies."
-- Court of Arbitration for Sport

The matter of bilateral agreements for dispute resolution refers only to immediate jurisdiction by a particular court. Read that to mean in one of these particular agreements, the Court of Arbitration for example is the only manner of recourse. In this situation, there are numerous avenues, and of course no agreement exists. It's still a matter of sporting contract law and this is the judiciary for it -- particularly so because the Sydney arm exists and so can apply Australian Law by way of domicile.

 

[eastsrule]

All I am saying is that all the legalities associated with signing a contract with a French Rugby Union club (maybe he hasn't even signed, but is about to? I don't know) would have been researched.

To think that Khoder Nasser, whilst an absolute stain on humanity, did not research all the facts before getting one of his clients to sign a contract, is stupid.

The only way that this is going any further is if the Australian or NZ government take it further. Will that happen?

 

[eastsrule]

"Any individual or legal entity with capacity to act may have recourse to the services of the CAS. These include athletes, clubs, sports federations, organisers of sports events, sponsors or television companies."
-- Court of Arbitration for Sport

The matter of bilateral agreements for dispute resolution refers only to immediate jurisdiction by a particular court. Read that to mean in one of these particular agreements, the Court of Arbitration for example is the only manner of recourse. In this situation, there are numerous avenues, and of course no agreement exists. It's still a matter of sporting contract law and this is the judiciary for it -- particularly so because the Sydney arm exists and so can apply Australian Law by way of domicile.

I ask this question without knowing the answer...

Has the ICAS ever ruled on matters related to the NRL and French RU?

More broadly, has the ICAS ever ruled on matters related the NRL? Has the NRL ever upheld this ruling and does it (OR the French RU) even have some sort of agreement with the ICAS to allow it to have jurisdiction?

If the answer is no, then the ICAS can make 10 million rulings related to this matter and not one single one of those rulings will have any sort of binding and will not prevent SBW from playing RU in France (if that is what is actually happening...?).

This goes beyond sport contract law. It goes to general common law relating to contracts and specifically associates with french and australian laws and unless there is a specific part of SBW's contract that states he cannot play RU in france, nothing can happen...

 

[IanG]

Either way it's setting a dangerous precedence.

 

[Perth Red]

Sounds like Bulldogs probably can't stop him playing RU overseas but hopefully the Bulldogs can take him to the cleaners in our courts for breach of contract and the NRL can draw a line in the sand and state that they will refuse to ever register him again in the NRL.